Perhaps this is something of a side issue, but Shadow Minister has an interesting take on the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s - obviously not the same war I reported on. It began with Iraq invading Iran, not the other way round, Saddam Hussein hoping to take advanatge of Iran's internal chaos following the Islamic Revolution to grab some territory. His professional army had early successes, but sheer weight of number on the Iranian side - the use of 'human waves' - stalled his advance and for most of the eight-year conflict it was a World War I-style stalemate, with a ceasefire brokered by the UN finally being accepted by both war-weary sides.

Graham, don't be surprised at SM's views. Any resemblance between his view of history and actual history is unknown. In common with the original author , he ignores the overwhelming support for Iran shown at last year's non-aligned conference. Ditto the overwhelming support for Iran by the Arab population as shown in reputable opinion polls (as distinct from the views of their despotic leaders).

We now have David Cameron baldly stating that Syria has used chemical weapons when the evidence is virtually non-existent. The evidence is stronger that the "rebels" used such weapons, presumably with the intent of having it blamed on the Syrian government, as was set out in an email exchange published in the Daily Mail last January, but since gone down the memory hole. Are people so blindingly stupid that they cannot see that the chemical weapons canard is a re-run of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" propaganda that lead to a disastrous and illegal war?

Even if the allegation of chemical weapons use was true, the claimed deaths of 200 or thereabouts are fewer than those killed by the illegal Israeli air strikes on Syria this year, about which our abysmal government (and opposition) maintain a stunning silence.

The US sponsored attacks on the Syrian government were planned more than a decade ago as set out in numerous documents. Seymour Hersh wrote about it in the New Yorker in 2007 and it was old news even then. Yet the pathetic Bob Carr, who claims to be well read, seems incapable of understanding what is happening, or more likely does understand but is so captive to the US-Israeli axis that he cannot or will not speak up in Australia's interests.

James O'Neil: Bob Carr, who claims to be well read, seems incapable of understanding what is happening, or more likely does understand but is so captive to the US-Israeli axis that he cannot or will not speak up in Australia's interests.

What's it got to do with Australia?

James O'Neil: Syria has used chemical weapons. the "rebels" used such weapons.

Didn't I read a UN report lately that both sides had been using Chemical Weapons. We all know that all Governments lie to their people, that's nothing new. Political Correctness in the guise of Diplomacy.

This War has nothing to do with the West. It is an internal Middle Eastern problem. The West should stay well out of it, stop even reporting it or sending Aid to both sides. & let the Middle East take care of their own.

If the West get involved in any way they will blame the West for causing it, as usual with the result of more 7-11's down the track.

@Jaybe. There is a distinction between having an interest in a peaceful resolution of Middle Eastern conflicts and becoming militarily involved. Many western nations and their GCC allies have chosen to intervene militarily on behalf of the "rebels". I happen to think that is the wrong policy on a number of counts.

Australia does have an interest in peace in the region, also for a number of reasons. One is the strategic importance of oil and gas resources. A second is the general desire for the peaceful resolution of disputes. Australia's blind support for Israel and the US is not likely to result in a just and peaceful resolution. Thirdly, in case you had forgotten, Australia is a member of the Security Council which imposes special obligations to find a solution to conflicts within the terms of the UN Charter.

Putting one's head in the proverbial sand is not a policy option likely to appeal to any party, and neither is it a good one.

And just what do YOU propose should happen, James? Give me something to work with here.

Obviously you are anti Yank, Israel, etc. Personally I have no opinion on any Government. The UN has proven it's self to be a toothless Tiger. "All talk , no action." & if they do do something, it's too late & not enough. The CEO's have had a good holiday in grand style, then go away smiling at the mess they've left behind. Ditto to the Security Council. Then it's all explained with a Political Correct diplomatic Media Release on what a great job they are doing.

I look forward to a discussion on YOUR possible solution to the problem. What's the bet I don't get one. (other peoples job)

Jayb, Your well -intentioned neutralist stance has been left far, far behind as the conflict has escalated into a proxy international war, with the potential for catastrophic consequences. Don't you understand that the US, Russia, China, France, England, Turkey, Qatar, S. Arabia and other Gulf states, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the Moslem Brotherhood, jihadists of all persuasions and others, believing vital interests are at stake, are already intervening